Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

The cosmos at our fingertips.
User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2553
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by rstevenson » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:00 pm

HiYoSilver wrote:... Seriously though :| science should be about investigating .. not following a leader. Suit yourself though.
Following consensus is vastly different from following a leader.

Rob

HiYoSilver

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by HiYoSilver » Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:11 pm

rstevenson wrote:
HiYoSilver wrote:... Seriously though :| science should be about investigating .. not following a leader. Suit yourself though.
Following consensus is vastly different from following a leader.

Rob
My first reaction to your comment was: Once a person has decided he/she is incapable of original thought and discovery he/she should perhaps leave their interest in science behind. However .. I remind myself that not all science is focused on discovery.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by geckzilla » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:05 pm

Ok, science is a broad, broad field of study, and astronomy is still broad, and astrophysics itself is a specialty with specialties, and people tend to stick to one particular specialty and get really good at it. For everything else, they have to rely on others, because there just isn't enough time in one's life to know everything and be good at everything. And how can we tell who to trust on these matters, and who not to trust? Accreditation, work history, personal contacts... any number of things you fail to offer us, HiYo. It's hard to trust you, and we don't have time for you, and you get so worked up that we don't just automatically accept what you have to say. It's really annoying.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

HiYoSilver

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by HiYoSilver » Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:44 pm

geckzilla wrote:Ok, science is a broad, broad field of study, and astronomy is still broad, and astrophysics itself is a specialty with specialties, and people tend to stick to one particular specialty and get really good at it. For everything else, they have to rely on others, because there just isn't enough time in one's life to know everything and be good at everything. And how can we tell who to trust on these matters, and who not to trust? Accreditation, work history, personal contacts... any number of things you fail to offer us, HiYo. It's hard to trust you, and we don't have time for you, and you get so worked up that we don't just automatically accept what you have to say. It's really annoying.
Hi Geck,
I don't mean to offend anyone, and after so many years as a participant here I do feel respect and yes affection towards you all, but I don't want you to trust me .. that's never been my objective .. I've always said I offer ideas only, and plainly I have stated my lack of formal education and have no shame in that, but some of my ideas I strongly believe in so I say yes I strongly believe in my opinion, ideas which I get enthusiastic about, I guess you mistake that for getting 'worked up.' Also, your use of the Royal 'We' puts you into a select group, so that if ONE person in that group expresses disfavour of an idea, perhaps it's natural for the group to follow that leader .. but I don't see that happening in participants here as a group in general, I've had good responses and exchanges with a few people here, and when I adopted the HiYoSilver moniker it was in jest, amplifying my miniscule stature when I corrected a newcomer's opinion of Chris, he/she telling Chris that if Chris really believed what he wrote he may as well believe in a flat earth, that newcomer's opinion seeming to be based on what seemed a tiredness in Chris's statement, an inexactness or omission. So while I see Chris's positions, generally, as not containing enough original thought, I do respect his science in general.
Also, what I've seen is, when I find good support for my ideas, and provide links, they're most often not read, perhaps because as you say, 'we have no time for you,' which I understand, BUT, don't forget that while completely unaware of any potential support for my idea of the expanding anti-gravity nature of Voids, that idea now widely recognized as supportable by mainsteam science, that science proving that Voids are expanding and providing motive power for neighbouring galaxies including our own .. well, I think what is NOT generally recognized by mainsteam science is the POTENTIAL value of renegade ideas, and seemingly under qualified opinions.
How did I come up with the idea for expanding anti-gravity Voids years before, to my knowledge, anyone else? My lack of formal education did not PREVENT me from seeing what I saw, clearly, in illustrations of the universe .. Voids as bubbles .. galaxies lined up on the borders of voids as if they Voids were pushing at the galaxies. I had nothing to prevent me from saying, 'no, you are NOT seeing what you are seeing.' Also, while recognizing that religion is not permitted discussion her, perhaps the Creator of the universe gave me a clear and simple vision .. but I can't say that definitely.
While I came to be offended at being 'booted,' I did come to appreciate the quiet time away for reading and contemplation, knowing eventually that some of my ideas would eventually be supported by mainstream science, even if not in my lifetime. I'm not after fame, but I would like to stir up (not initialize) the spirit of creative thought, that I might contribute to whatever small way to the progression of science, that individuals might see opportunity in free thought, that conversation might be more amiable, etc.
With sincere regards. Bob

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by geckzilla » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:24 pm

There is plenty of room here for creative thought, but not the kind where it's presented as The Truth (tm) or without a very clear disclaimer that one is not an expert, or it's just a quick idea, back of the envelope calculation, etc. I personally do not have time for masses of text, especially as a moderator needing to read through just about everything to do the job. And no, it's not the "royal we" when I'm using the pronoun for a plural, collective group. The "royal we" is, by definition, in reference to singular individual.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

HiYoSilver

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by HiYoSilver » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:19 pm

geckzilla wrote:There is plenty of room here for creative thought, but not the kind where it's presented as The Truth (tm) or without a very clear disclaimer that one is not an expert, or it's just a quick idea, back of the envelope calculation, etc. I personally do not have time for masses of text, especially as a moderator needing to read through just about everything to do the job. And no, it's not the "royal we" when I'm using the pronoun for a plural, collective group. The "royal we" is, by definition, in reference to singular individual.
Thanks for correcting my misconception.

From Wiki:

The royal "we" or pluralis majestatis[edit]
Main article: Royal we
The royal "we" (pluralis majestatis) refers to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope. (I don't see 'Mod' there. :lol2: smily included to know I'm joking around.)

The editorial "we"[edit]
The editorial "we" is a similar phenomenon, in which an editorial columnist in a newspaper or a similar commentator in another medium refers to himself as we when giving his opinion. Here, the writer casts himself in the role of a spokesperson: either for the media institution that employs him, or more generally on behalf of the party or body of citizens who agree with the commentary.


The author's "we" or pluralis modestiae[edit]
Similar to the editorial "we", pluralis modestiae is the practice common in mathematical and scientific literature of referring to a generic third person by we (instead of the more common one or the informal you):

By adding four and five, we obtain nine.
We are thus led also to a definition of "time" in physics. – Albert Einstein
"We" in this sense often refers to "the reader and the author," since the author often assumes that the reader knows and agrees with certain principles or previous theorems for the sake of brevity (or, if not, the reader is prompted to look them up).

This practice is common in mathematics, philosophy, and comments in computer code.[citation needed]

I guess what I was trying to say, Geck, was, regarding opinion, without a majority vote on opinion, the use of 'we' should perhaps be 'me and those who think like me.'

User avatar
bystander
Apathetic Retiree
Posts: 17670
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by bystander » Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:24 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk.
— Garrison Keillor

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by geckzilla » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:41 am

HiYoSilver wrote:I guess what I was trying to say, Geck, was, regarding opinion, without a majority vote on opinion, the use of 'we' should perhaps be 'me and those who think like me.'
It has been discussed more than you realize.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

sallyseaver
Science Officer
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:33 am

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by sallyseaver » Mon Nov 20, 2017 11:34 pm

HiYoSilver wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote:I don't have the time to look into tired time.
We'll know it's worth investing some study time when it passes sufficient peer review in mainstream journals and acquires a degree of consensus as a viable theory. A good rule for all non-specialists.
You've decided that someone else is smarter than you Chris?
This is just wrong! There is no call for this kind of sniping, HiYoSilver. Please ask for forgiveness. Chris labors through the posts to provide relevant information and educate people on the forum. Education is with respect to what is known. He does an amazing job.

And this thread is not about any idea under the sun, it is supposed to be about star-system formation. Please honor this.

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by geckzilla » Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:17 pm

I'm sorry to have to put this in here, but HiYo hasn't had a PMable account here for a long time. You've had your fun once again, and it's time to see the door for the umpteenth time. We (yes, "we" as in all of the moderators—not just myself—agree, and have agreed for a long time) simply do not want someone who has already been permanently banned back at the forum. This is part of the rules (see #17). Please don't come back, HiYo. Seriously. This is not a democracy, and it's not up for discussion.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

User avatar
rstevenson
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 2553
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Dartmouth, NS, Canada

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by rstevenson » Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:27 pm

Thank you. We -- and that's the royal we in my case -- value the work of the moderators, and especially so in this case.

HRH Rob

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: East Idaho

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by BDanielMayfield » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:12 pm

rstevenson wrote:Thank you. We -- and that's the royal we in my case -- value the work of the moderators, and especially so in this case.

HRH Rob
Doesn't every court need a jester tho?

But then again, the royals here do have the right to consign pranksters to the dungeon, or even to declare "off with his head!"

Bruce, (former dungeon dweller)
"Happy are the peaceable ... "

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8887
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by geckzilla » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:14 pm

It's just a web forum.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: East Idaho

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by BDanielMayfield » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:33 pm

geckzilla wrote:It's just a web forum.
Of course m'lady.
"Happy are the peaceable ... "

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 14018
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:23 pm

geckzilla wrote:It's just a web forum.
That's what the Black Widow said...
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
THX1138
Emailed Bob; Got a new title!
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:27 am
AKA: Wile-e-coyote super genius
Location: west covina california

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by THX1138 » Sun May 20, 2018 7:06 am

Coming from a simple cabinet maker with virtually no schooling in any kind of or type of astrobiology type stuff I can only give you the most simplest explanation for planet formation but sometimes the simplest explanation turns out to be the correct one.
After stars have formed if the left over matter is very small in size then no planets will form as the particles just bounce off each other.
On the other hand if after the star has formed there are very large chunks of matter left over then the process of moon or planet forming may begin.
In a manner something like the tiny moonlets and the shepparding (I know that’s spelled wrong) moonlets are doing in Saturn’s rings.
Who’s to say that a large moon will not form from all that matter floating the rings of Saturn.
Laugh if you will but that’s my two cents where planet formation is concerned
Good day all
I've come to the conclusion that when i said i wanted to be somebody when i grew up i probably should have been more specific

BDanielMayfield
Don't bring me down
Posts: 1795
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 11:24 am
AKA: Bruce
Location: East Idaho

Re: Requesting input: what needs to be answered by a new theory of star-system formation?

Post by BDanielMayfield » Sat May 26, 2018 11:37 am

THX1138 wrote:
Sun May 20, 2018 7:06 am
Coming from a simple cabinet maker with virtually no schooling in any kind of or type of astrobiology type stuff I can only give you the most simplest explanation for planet formation but sometimes the simplest explanation turns out to be the correct one.
After stars have formed if the left over matter is very small in size then no planets will form as the particles just bounce off each other.
On the other hand if after the star has formed there are very large chunks of matter left over then the process of moon or planet forming may begin.
In a manner something like the tiny moonlets and the shepparding (I know that’s spelled wrong) moonlets are doing in Saturn’s rings.
Who’s to say that a large moon will not form from all that matter floating the rings of Saturn.
Laugh if you will but that’s my two cents where planet formation is concerned
Good day all
Welcome back dude. Glad you haven't faded out entirely.

Physics and the laws thereof say that the rings of Saturn cannot form up into a large moon. Quite likely possibly [no consensus yet?] there once was a large moon that strayed too close and got pulled apart by Saturn's gravity.

Bruce
"Happy are the peaceable ... "